Micronesia is confused

Pacific Islands Monthly

Micronesia is confused about what it wants

By Carl Heine

In presenting the report of the Political Status Delegation to the Congress of Micronesia, the chair man of the Status Delegation, Senator Lazarus E. Salii said, “Discussions so far with the United States reveal profound differences between the positions of the two sides.”

The report itself must be com mended. It is a very well written document on the present position of the Micronesian people as seen and presented by the political status delegation. The report also presents the position of the United States.

Both positions are clearly analysed.

However, the report is far from complete. There is nothing in it that will satisfy any average Micronesian voter. It offers nothing conclusive nor recommends anything concrete in terms of a political choice. The report simply summarises the results of the recent talks between Washington and the Congress of Micronesia’s Status Delegation, and reiterates the latter’s insistence on free association and/or independence.

The two sides came to a deadlock on several crucial issues, but most important was the use of land—who shall control it and how future acquisition of land in terms of United States military interest in Micronesia would affect the Micronesian people.

At present there is “an impasse”.

There is much distance to be travelled before any meaningful goal is reached in the Micronesian quest for a viable political future.

The status delegation was directed to negotiate with the United States on the basis of “free association” as the first choice of the Micronesian people. In the first round of talks held in Washington in October, 1969. the Micronesian Status Delegation presented 11 points which were con sidered to be of paramount im portance to the Micronesian people.

The US delegation at that time seemed willing to go along on all 11 points. However, during the second round of talks held on Saipan in May of this year, the US delegation put forward its own proposal for a Commonwealth status for Micronesia.

This caught the Micronesian delega

tion by surprise. It had come to the May talks hoping that the US delegation would pursue the same issues and principles that were on the agenda earlier in Washington.

The Micronesian delegation saw no reasons why the Micronesian constitution should have to be modified by the US Congress and why it should have to be inconsistent with the US rnnsfihuinn ™ ’ , ..

The report goes on in great detail on the procedures of terminating the present Trusteeship agreement; and further discusses the advantages and disadvantages of independence. While these may be reasonable, they are unnecessary as far as the present issues are concerned.

In view of the present impasse, what is needed is to open further negotiation rather than resort to the issue of independence. Independence should be the final act of the Micronesian people only if and when the chips are down.

The issue that is central to both sides in the negotiations is land.

How will it be controlled? It is a well-known fact that the only interest on the part of the United States in Micronesia is Micronesia’s land, and Micronesia’s stategic location in the Central Pacific-ocean area. The Americans are losing money by being m Micronesia. By the same token, land is considered by Micronesians foremost asset and their only form of social security. If the control of land is taken away from the Micro nesia then , heir who|e cultu custo and a of life are also taken a Taking the con trol f , h thin that the Micronesians have been B ; to preserve, has b ht de!ay in the negotiations. To Micr ' nesianSi land represents not only soc j a j security, but also identity a nd self-respect. To them land is more than just a piece of real estate, i t represents a way of life. To Ame ricans, land is where a tall building can be erected; its value is based on how much wealth can be accumulated from it.

The Micronesian choice of free association placed complete and un

conditional control of land in the hands of the Micronesians themselves; the US offer of Commonwealth status gives the US Federal Government certain rights and strong control over the use of land in Micronesia. The terms stipulated under the offer of Commonwealth status were not acceptable to the political status delegation. In the expression of the chairman, Senator Lazarus E. Salii, they were “well below the minimum standard of self-government ac ceptable to the Congress of Micro nesia”, and “the United States offer was a disguised offer of outright ter ritorial status”.

Micronesians are very sceptical of the US offer, and perhaps they have some justification. They have learned much from American history, and of its dealing with minority groups. The recent uprising of the American Negroes, the plight of the American Indians, and the status of the native Hawaiians are all bad indications of unfortunate historical happenings that speak very negatively against the United States. In this regard the Micronesians are determined to see that history does not repeat itself in these islands, small and insignificant though they may be.

Contributing to the present impasse is the fact that both Washington and Micronesia want to have their cake and eat it too. Washington wants to maintain its strategic military position in Micronesia, yet is not willing to grant a full measure of true internal self-government to the Micronesian people. On the other hand, Micro-

Continued on p. 118

nesia wants to have full control of its destiny, with a large amount of US economic aid and other assistance, yet is not willing to bargain when the question of land is an issue.

Some degree of compromise and perhaps sacrifice will have to be made by both sides. It is on this issue that the report of the political status delegation is lacking.

Any discussion towards obtaining full independence for Micronesia at this stage in time and development should be considered premature and

untimely. The US government has the upperhand in this negotiation, whether it is toward a permanent political settlement, a semi-political settlement, or for maintaining the present form. Whether Micronesia likes it or not, the present trusteeship agreement is very much in force and still binding on both parties.

The United States negotiating team will attempt to use it to its full extent possible. If free association is unacceptable to the United States in view of its military and other inter national commitments in the Western Pacific, an independent Micronesia would be less acceptable.

United Nations pressure and feel

ings might be a force to reckon with,, but the UN is also in a dilemma ofl its own. It is doubtful whether the UN would want to put too muchr pressure on the United States —“aE very present help in time of trouble”.

On the other hand, if the primary, goal for Micronesia is for full internal self-government, with United States funding and external protection, then further negotiation is called for to reconsider the offer of a Common wealth, or to further study the con cept of free association. Any attempt toward making Micronesia completely independent at this time would be irrational and irresponsible.

The dilemma of poverty, hunger, ignorance and lack of proper medical care faced by these islands is the gap between expectation and reality Under an independent Micronesia, these long standing problems are likely to increase, not decrease.

Yet there are those in Micronesia, both Micronesian and non-Micro nesian, who are willing to surrendei anything to regain that mythologica: absurdity called “Micronesian dig nity”. Is life so cheap, and “Micro nesian dignity” so important thai human hunger, ignorance, povert) and poor medical care can bf deleted from the agenda of the statu delegation? Can true dignity be con ferred if the soul is hopeless and the body destitute?

Certainly, there is nobility in th( Micronesian quest to manage its owi internal affairs and thus regain it lost sense of dignity. But Micronesk should be awakened to the reality o change. Life in Micronesia has evei changed too. Is it necessary fo Micronesia to live in the simplicity of yesterday? If the present system i unrealistic and undesirable, can ai independent Micronesia remedy tb situation? These questions will haw to be satisfactorily answered befor any plebiscite is held.

Micronesia should prepare itsel for the coming challenge of tomorrov and try to attain a new freedom au an improved sense of dignity. 1 would be a mistake for Micronesi to return to the nobility of it obsolete past where only a few shard honor and dignity and the multitud lived in bondage.

The quest for a new status by th Congress of Micronesia’s Politics Status Delegation reflects the geners sentiment of the Micronesian peopl and their regard for freedom. How ever, such an important issue as thi should not be settled without public referendum.

The status delegation will have t assure the majority of the Micrc nesian people that there will be n new status for Micronesia withoi their participation and consent.